Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #5626 > unrolled thread

English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 15:26 -0700
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 17:20 -0600
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 22:22 +0000
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 09:42 +1000
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Steven W. Orr" <steveo@syslang.net> - 2011-05-17 21:16 -0400
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> - 2011-05-18 04:51 +0000
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-05-18 07:19 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-17 23:42 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 09:26 +0100
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-18 09:16 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 19:11 +0100
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Raymond Wiker <raw@RAWMBP-2.local> - 2011-05-18 20:20 +0200
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 19:39 +0100
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Raymond Wiker <raw@RAWMBP-2.local> - 2011-05-18 21:09 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 21:02 +0100
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Raymond Wiker <raw@RAWMBP-2.local> - 2011-05-18 22:40 +0200
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-19 05:56 +0100
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-19 16:14 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 04:41 +1000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 04:12 +1000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-05-18 20:57 +0200
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-19 16:17 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-05-20 02:38 +0200
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@tkk.fi> - 2011-05-20 12:00 +0300
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-18 22:09 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 06:14 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-19 11:06 +1000
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-21 09:32 +0100
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:52 +0200
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:54 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:56 +0200
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-21 15:34 +0000
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> - 2011-05-20 06:50 +0000
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 23:06 -0700
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Harrison Hill <harrishill@gmx.com> - 2011-05-17 23:50 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:16 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-18 22:19 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:16 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-30 22:58 +1000
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively see@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) - 2011-05-18 12:59 -0500
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> - 2011-05-20 06:54 +0000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 17:10 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:28 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-30 23:02 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:28 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Glenn Knickerbocker <NotR@bestweb.net> - 2011-05-18 16:54 -0400
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:58 -0600
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:10 -0700
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 08:32 -0600
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 08:15 -0700
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 09:43 -0600
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 09:12 +0100
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Espen Vestre <espen@vestre.net> - 2011-05-18 10:20 +0200
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-19 23:21 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-20 05:28 +0100
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-23 20:48 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 22:13 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-20 06:55 +0000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-20 09:48 +0100
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 10:21 -0700
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-23 20:56 +0200
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-24 00:18 +0000
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-25 00:06 +0200
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 10:40 +1000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:18 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:19 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 23:05 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-25 09:26 +0200
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 00:51 -0700
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 17:59 +1000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 21:59 +0000
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 10:48 +0200
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-26 10:06 +0000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 12:46 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 09:31 -0500
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 22:58 +0000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:00 +1000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 10:59 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Charles" <C.Sanders@DeleteThis.Bom.GOV.AU> - 2011-05-26 20:58 +1000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:12 +1000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:38 -0700
                            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 07:46 +1000
                              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 15:54 -0700
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:38 -0700
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 13:20 +0200
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:28 +1000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:51 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-28 21:36 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 05:58 +1000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-29 00:49 +0000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-30 23:04 +0200
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-30 23:17 +0000
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 07:28 +1000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-30 23:10 +0200
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:58 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 07:27 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:39 -0700
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> - 2011-05-18 10:25 +0100
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 13:00 -0700
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 21:19 +0100
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr> - 2011-05-18 22:33 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> - 2011-05-18 22:00 +0100
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-20 08:10 +0100
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:22 -0700
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 08:46 +1000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 16:17 -0700
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 09:32 +1000
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 21:20 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 14:28 +1000
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 10:40 -0700
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 08:14 +1000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 10:15 +0000
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:32 -0700
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-20 08:07 +0100
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2011-05-18 13:07 -0700
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-20 08:00 +0100
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-27 22:56 -0700

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#6580

On May 26, 6:12 am, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
>
> (Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
> she's nontechnical.)
>
> She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
> further". I think that's a fair, if not perfectly accurate,
> explanation.

Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
case of destroying data!

What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
recursion to stop it? If (for example) I know that a "while loop" will
continue forever until "something" stops it then i really don't know
enough about while loops to start using them safely do i? I need to
know what a "break" will do or god forbid what if an exception is
thrown? What about if a condition is explicitly passed? I need to know
how to interpret the condition and it's consequences. Crikey, this is
getting complicated 8-O!

PS: Of course i could just cross my fingers, run the code, and hope
for the best but i'm not a Perl hacker.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6584

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
> case of destroying data!
>
> What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
> recursion to stop it? If (for example) I know that a "while loop" will
> continue forever until "something" stops it then i really don't know
> enough about while loops to start using them safely do i?

That's true of anything. If I turn on the light switch, I expect there
to be a limit to the amount of light it produces; I don't want a
household fluro to produce the intensity of the worklights in a
theatre. Ought I to get the technical specs and find out exactly how
many lumens will be produced, or can I safely power it on in the
expectation that it will do the obvious thing?

Chris Angelico
PS. Why am I responding to rantingrick? I'm sure I'm going to regret this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6593

On May 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
> > case of destroying data!
>
> > What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
> > recursion to stop it? If (for example) I know that a "while loop" will
> > continue forever until "something" stops it then i really don't know
> > enough about while loops to start using them safely do i?
>
> That's true of anything. If I turn on the light switch, I expect there
> to be a limit to the amount of light it produces; I don't want a
> household fluro to produce the intensity of the worklights in a
> theatre. Ought I to get the technical specs and find out exactly how
> many lumens will be produced, or can I safely power it on in the
> expectation that it will do the obvious thing?


That is a very good argument however it does not consider the fact of
"technical users" verses "non-technical users".

Anyone can be expected to understand the consequenses of switching on
a lightbulb (even a child) because the action requires no logical
thinking abilites... simply flip it and forget it.

HOWEVER not everyone understands the consequeses of recursively
deleting a directory... or whatever that means in the current context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6581

On May 26, 6:12 am, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
>
> (Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
> she's nontechnical.)
>
> She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
> further". I think that's a fair, if not perfectly accurate,
> explanation.

Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
case of destroying data!

What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
recursion to stop it? If (for example) I know that a "while loop" will
continue forever until "something" stops it then i really don't know
enough about while loops to start using them safely do i? I need to
know what a "break" will do or god forbid what if an exception is
thrown? What about if a condition is explicitly passed? I need to know
how to interpret the condition and it's consequences. Crikey, this is
getting complicated 8-O!

PS: Of course i could just cross my fingers, run the code, and hope
for the best but i'm not a Perl hacker.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6314

* Charles (Thu, 26 May 2011 20:58:35 +1000)
> "Thorsten Kampe" <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.284834d227e3acd1989813@news.individual.de...
> >
> > If someone has learned what a directory or folder is, you don't have
> > to explain what "include sub-folders" means. Instead of creating a
> > new mysterious term ("recursively delete"), you simply explain stuff
> > by re- using an already existing term. It's just that simple.
> 
> I'm a native english speaker, and to me there is a difference between
> "delete directory and sub-directories" (or folders and sub-folders if
> you follow Microsoft's naming conventions) and "recursively delete". I
> know english is very ambiguous, but to me "directory and
> sub-directories" does not necessarily imply sub-directories of
> sub-directories and so on,

Are we playing word games here? You can easily improve my example to 
"delete directory and all sub-directories beneath". Or "delete directory 
and all sub-directories beneath and all content". Or "delete directory 
and all files and directories within".

> while "recursively delete" does carry the connotation of deleting the
> sub-directories of sub-directories and sub-directories of
> sub-directories of sub-directories and so on.

Sure. Because you already know what it means (someone has already 
translated it to you long time ago).

Did your mom tell you to "recursively clean up your room"?.

Does my file manager ask me "are you sure you want to recursively delete 
the folder?"? No, it asks 'are you sure you want to remove folder 
"folder name" and all its contents?'.

Thorsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6315

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Thorsten Kampe
<thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> wrote:
> Did your mom tell you to "recursively clean up your room"?.
>

Considering that I don't have a wardrobe with a portal to Narnia, no,
she has never had to tell me to clean up the room inside my room.

Anyway, my room's full. There's no room in it anywhere. :)

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6347

On May 26, 4:20 am, Thorsten Kampe <thors...@thorstenkampe.de> wrote:
> Did your mom tell you to "recursively clean up your room"?.

that had me L O L!

i think i'll quote in my unix hating blogs sometimes, if you don't
mind. ☺

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6486

On 2011-05-25, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I know many people who have no idea what a directory is, let alone a 
> subdirectory, unless it's the phone directory. They're non-computer 
> users. Once they start using computers, they quickly work out what the 
> word means in context, or they ask and get told, and then they've learned 
> a new word and never need ask again. This is a good thing.
>
> The idiom of "recursively delete" is no different. Of course some people 
> will have to learn a new term in order to make sense of it. So what?

OK, but the addition of recursive, is not really usefull, is it? Deleting
the directory says it, doesn't it?


>> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their
>> garden? I burn them.
>
> I know many people who incinerate leaves in an incinerator. Or at least 
> they used to, until the government here banned it. It might only have 
> been a 44 gallon drum with holes punched in the side, but they still 
> called it an incinerator.
>
> I learned that word from my father, who left school at 14 to work in a 
> shoe shop. He isn't especially educated, doesn't read much beyond the 
> daily tabloid, and thinks Benny Hill is the height of wit. But he's not 
> an idiot and even at 72 is capable of learning new words.

Is it that widespread? I figured most people woul speak of burning.
OK, my bad if it is.


>>> Do they need to know the words "microwave oven" when they could be
>>> saying "invisible rays cooking thing"?
>> 
>> The word oven has existed for ages, microwave is just a name for the
>> type of oven. Not even a description, just a name.
>
> Why do you think they're called "microwave ovens" instead of "fizzbaz 
> ovens"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that they 
> cook with microwaves?
>
> So not actually "just a name" at all. It's a jargon description of the 
> implementation of the oven.

True, but I meant that they just use it as a name. I don't think many people
would actually try to find out what a microwave is.


>>> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
>>> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws
>>> of Motion in order to drive cars?
>> 
>> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The
>> simple addition of gas solved that need. 
>
> What's a gas pedal? Is that some strange American term for what most of 
> the English-speaking world knows as the accelerator? *wink*


Oh, come one. I'm sure I've heard that often enough NOT to have imagined it.


>> Oh, and it's break pedal, not descellarator. (sp?)
> That would be brake, and decelerator.

Sorry. But I actually have a excuse for those. (see below)  ;-)


>> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
>
> You can't force people to learn new words, although you would be 
> surprised how even the most disinterested, lazy speaker manages to pick 
> up vocabulary without even being aware of it.

I know, I'm one.


> But nor do you have to pander to the slackers. They can learn the word, 
> or not, I don't care. If I'm writing for an audience of children, or 
> English as a second language, or the otherwise linguistically challenged, 

Third, actually. But I do try.  ;-)


> I'll simplify my vocabulary appropriately. For everyone else, I'll use an 
> ordinary adult vocabulary, and that includes the word "recursion" or 
> "recursive". It's hardly technical jargon -- I've found a discussion of 
> gangsta rap that uses it. Even children understand the concept of 
> recursion (self-reference). People put it in comedies like Blazing 
> Saddles and Space Balls! How difficult is it to put a name to the concept?
>
>
>> I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word
>> can be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value,
>> somehow).
>> 
>> But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms
>> that need to be explained to 'lay' people.
>
> Pedantic... that's another one of those academic words that need to be 
> explained to lay people, isn't it? As is academic itself, and in fact 
> "lay people". Who uses "lay people" in conversation?

That (lay people) was atually a quote, from someone who actually used it in
this thread.


>> widespread, usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless
>> effort if pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)
>
> I think you *grossly* underestimate how many words people know, 
> particularly if you include so-called "passive vocabulary" (words people 
> can understand in context, but not define precisely). See, for example:
>
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howmany.htm

Got a point, there.



-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6489

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> wrote:
> Is it [the term 'incinerate'] that widespread? I figured most people
> woul speak of burning. OK, my bad if it is.

I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did deliberately fold
all of Europe down to one entity, and I did also deliberately leave
Great Britain out of that entity.)

> True, but I meant that they just use it as a name. I don't think many people
> would actually try to find out what a microwave is.

Most things work out that way. A thing gets a name based either on its
implementation or on the brand name of the first/most popular one. If
the only microwave oven ever produced had been made by Foobar Corp,
and that company were not known for anything else, then quite possibly
everyone would call them "foobar ovens".

>> Pedantic... that's another one of those academic words that need to be
>> explained to lay people, isn't it? As is academic itself, and in fact
>> "lay people". Who uses "lay people" in conversation?
>
> That (lay people) was atually a quote, from someone who actually used it in
> this thread.

"Lay person"/"lay people" is a fairly common expression, although
"laity" (which ought to mean the same thing) seems only to have
meaning in a church context (as in, the non-clergy).

Geeks tend to have larger vocabularies than non-geeks, on average;
probably akin to our love of word games and precision (two distinct
notions that bridge surprisingly often).

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6505

On Sun, 29 May 2011 05:58:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Geeks tend to have larger vocabularies than non-geeks, on average;
> probably akin to our love of word games and precision (two distinct
> notions that bridge surprisingly often).

And also because more educated people in general tend to have larger 
vocabularies than less educated people: both for the number of words they 
actually use, and those they can interpret in context.

Geeks sometimes tend to forget that they're not the only smart, educated 
people who use "hard" (big, technical, complicated) words.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6671

On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
> Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
> come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did deliberately fold
> all of Europe down to one entity, and I did also deliberately leave
> Great Britain out of that entity.)

I allways found that odd. Especially if you're talking geography, not
politics. I can understand they want to be seen as independant, even they
are in it enough to allways opose anything someone else suggests.  :-)

To me, saying the UK isn't part of Europe, is like saying Japan isn't part
of Asia. Oh by the way, I'm Belgian.


> Most things work out that way. A thing gets a name based either on its
> implementation or on the brand name of the first/most popular one. If
> the only microwave oven ever produced had been made by Foobar Corp,
> and that company were not known for anything else, then quite possibly
> everyone would call them "foobar ovens".

Yeah, when I was a kid a photo camera was called a Kodak.



-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6677

On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:04:41 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:

> On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
>> Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
>> come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did deliberately fold
>> all of Europe down to one entity, and I did also deliberately leave
>> Great Britain out of that entity.)
> 
> I allways found that odd. Especially if you're talking geography, not
> politics. I can understand they want to be seen as independant, even
> they are in it enough to allways opose anything someone else suggests. 
> :-)
> 
> To me, saying the UK isn't part of Europe, is like saying Japan isn't
> part of Asia. Oh by the way, I'm Belgian.

In my experience, the Japanese have the same attitude towards Asia as the 
British have towards Europe: they will claim membership, or deny it, 
depending on whichever suits their mood at the time.


>> Most things work out that way. A thing gets a name based either on its
>> implementation or on the brand name of the first/most popular one. If
>> the only microwave oven ever produced had been made by Foobar Corp, and
>> that company were not known for anything else, then quite possibly
>> everyone would call them "foobar ovens".
> 
> Yeah, when I was a kid a photo camera was called a Kodak.

Sometimes brand names do become generic. "Personal Computer" once was a 
specific IBM model, not just a description. Elevator and escalator were 
once brandnames. In some parts of the southern USA, "coke" is used as a 
word for any softdrink, not just Coca Cola.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6491

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:25 AM, GSO <gsowww@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese
> Proverb (So I'm told at least, I'd check with the Chinese first though ;)

See, I thought it was "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom", but the Chinese don't worship Yahweh, so I guess they
wouldn't say that. Proverbs chapter 9 verse 10, in any case. :)

Chris Angelico
yes, bit of a Bible geek as well as a programming geek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6672

On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Angelico
> yes, bit of a Bible geek as well as a programming geek

So you don't believe in genetic algorithms, then ?


(ducking for cover)



-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6575

On May 24, 5:06 pm, Rikishi42 <skunkwo...@rikishi42.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:

> > I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> > pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> > Motion in order to drive cars?
>
> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The simple
> addition of gas solved that need. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
> descellarator. (sp?)

Yes "Gas Pedal"... that clears up all the confusion </sarcasm>.
However i would have thought if the vehicle had a "decelerator petal"
it would at least sport a complimentary "accelerator petal". You know
the whole "equal and opposite thing"?

> > Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
> > that they don't need to know?
>
> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
>
> I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word can
> be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value, somehow).
>
> But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms that
> need to be explained to 'lay' people. Especially if there is a widespread,
> usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if
> pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)

You may be "right", but then again, who knows, you may be left? In
this upside down world of layperson colloquialisms -- which ironic-ly
enough are devised to "ease communication"... right? I mean i "used
to" think that choosing words that clearly described my intentions was
a good idea but heck, i would hate to think that those poor laypeople
had to languish though such tongue twisting syllable gymnastics just
for the sake of clear communications.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6579

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:58 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes "Gas Pedal"... that clears up all the confusion </sarcasm>.
> However i would have thought if the vehicle had a "decelerator petal"
> it would at least sport a complimentary "accelerator petal". You know
> the whole "equal and opposite thing"?

Call the go-faster pedal the "Newton's Second Law pedal", and the
oops-here-comes-an-obstacle pedal the "Newton's Third Law pedal",
because if you hit that thing, you'll see the third law in action. We
then need a demonstration of Newton's First Law, which I think is the
ignition key. We should turn it into a pedal to be consistent.

For the humour-blind: </jesting>

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6574

On May 20, 1:55 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:

> Trust me on this, if the audience of Carry On films could understand
> recursion, anyone can!

Well we could also say that this pathetic display of metal
masturbation is recursive also.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5677

Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com>:
>For example, when you want to delete the whole dir in emacs, it
>prompts this message: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”.

AFAICS what emacs calls "recursive delete" is what the ordinary person
would simply call "delete". Presumably the non-recursive delete is
called simply "delete" but is actually something more complicated than
delete, and you're supposed to know what that is.

Also (I'm speculating) a recursive delete means carrying out the
(ordinary, non-recursive) delete process on sub-directories,
recursively. The result of which is, put simply, to delete the
directory.

I find all this somewhat arcane. Questioning the precise suitability of
the word "recursive" seems like a quibble.

-- 
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5735

Xah wrote:
〈English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively〉
http://xahlee.org/comp/idiom_directory_recursively.html

Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com>:
>
> >For example, when you want to delete the whole dir in emacs, it
> >prompts this message: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”.
>
> AFAICS what emacs calls "recursive delete" is what the ordinary person
> would simply call "delete". Presumably the non-recursive delete is
> called simply "delete" but is actually something more complicated than
> delete, and you're supposed to know what that is.
>
> Also (I'm speculating) a recursive delete means carrying out the
> (ordinary, non-recursive) delete process on sub-directories,
> recursively. The result of which is, put simply, to delete the
> directory.
>
> I find all this somewhat arcane. Questioning the precise suitability of
> the word "recursive" seems like a quibble.

that's good point. I think what happens is that the “recursive” has
become a idiom associated with directory to such a degree that the
unix people don't know what the fuck they are talking about. They just
simply use the word to go with directory whever they mean the whole
directory.

In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
directory but not delete all files in it?

also, in the rsync case: “This would recursively transfer all files
from the directory … ”, what does the word “recursively” mean there?

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5737

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.python.]
On Wed, 18 May 2011 13:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee
  <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
:  Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
: > I find all this somewhat arcane. Questioning the precise suitability of
: > the word "recursive" seems like a quibble.
: 
:  that's good point. I think what happens is that the “recursive” has
:  become a idiom associated with directory to such a degree that the
:  unix people don't know what the fuck they are talking about. They just
:  simply use the word to go with directory whever they mean the whole
:  directory.

I totally agree that the motivation for the use of the word is
arcane.  We are many who understand and /need/ to understand 
arcane aspects of the system.

However, the word «recursive» is not automatically associated 
with discussion of directories.  Listing a directory, and 
listing a directory recursively, are two different operations.
Both are useful and important, and the distinction is necessary.

:  In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
:  possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
:  directory but not delete all files in it?

Yes you /might/ do exactly that.  You just probably don't want to.
I agree that the question could be rephrased in a more userfriendly
manner, but OTOH, if you find the usage arcane, you probably don't
have any benefit from using emacs over less arcane editors either.

:  also, in the rsync case: “This would recursively transfer all files
:  from the directory … ”, what does the word “recursively” mean there?

Exactly the same as it does in «listing the directory recursively»
or «deleting the directory recursively».

Again the distinction could be useful.  A non-recursive «rsync dir1
dir2» probably isn't useful, but «rsync * dir2» might be.

-- 
:-- Hans Georg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web